Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

Naturalism lacks a justification for the use of objectivity. They can count, but cannot account for there counting. So are just as capable of finding truth. The issue with not having a reason to comform to objectivity, it makes you free to bend and twist the truth according to your prefrence. Morality is a perfect example of this effect, and you can see it's negetive effects on society. But that may be straying off topic, you pretty much got it.

I was actually going to include the part in bold in my reply but decided not to, which was a mistake on my part. Regardless, I'm glad that I've understood you for the most part. 

Now, as far as "human sense making" goes, would you agree that this decition is the ultimate axiom? Can we agree on that much?

I'm afraid not, sir. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to respond to me and to understand me.  I hope that you feel that I've extended the same courtesy to you, sir.

Of course! Maybe a little too formal calling me sir alot, lol, but still refreshing. If you are okay with it i still have questions and propositions. Just can't tell if you are done or not so feel free to ignore me or call it quits.

So i'm curious to know what you mean when you imply something other than human sense making, as being a possible alternitive.

And rythm made me realise somthing i havn't been direct about, and that is, i see worldviews, and epistemology as being structured. While the contrary it's more of a mish mash of beliefs and facts, and you are just attempting to connect all the dots is that correct? Like a big puzzle piece of life? In that light, i comprehend alot more about the points you where making before.

Now if this is correct or mostly correct, could you could give me your synopsis on the idea of these different ways to visualise a world view. (Negate the supernaturalism vs naturalism atm)

---

"Suggest that all world views boil down to two options all you like, but I've already commented on that as well.  It's a false dichotomy.  You can pile fallacy atop fallacy until you have a mountain of them...and then erect a shrine to your god at the top....... and it's -still- not an argument."

Like i said, if you want to reference me to any supporting arguments you made, i'll go check them out. You obviously have the time and the talk for it, maybe you just don't want to?